HomeMy WebLinkAboutS06-Planning
CIU OF SAN BERNARD~ - REQUr:)T FOR COUNCIL AC~N
From:
Frank A. Schuma
Planning Director
Planning
Subject: Findings of Fact for Revocation
of County Variance No. 215-67
Dept:
Date:
October 30, 1986
Mayor and Council Meeting of
November 3, 1986, 2:00 p.m.
Synopsis of Previous Council action:
10/20/86 -- Mayor and Council conducted hearing on the appeal of the
Planning Commission's revocation of County Variance No.
215-67 and affirmed the action of revocation.
Recommended motion:
This item must be considered on the Supplemental Agenda in o~der to
start the 90-day appeal period that the property owner has. without
adoption of the specific findings of fact, the decision of the Mayor
and Council upholding the revocation of County Variance No. 215-67
would be incomplete.
That the Mayor and Council adopt the attached findings of fact as a
basis for revocation of County Variance No. 215-67.
~~
Signature Frank A. Schuma
Frank Schuma or Cynthia Grace
Contact person:
Phone:
5057 or 5056
Supporting data attached:
Findings of Fact
Ward:
6
FUNDING REOUIREMENTS:
Amount:
Source:
Finance:
Council Notes:
75-0262
Agenda Item No
s-,
"0'
o
o
c>
SUBJECT: Revocation of County Variance No. 215-67 -
Findings of Fact
Mayor and Council Meeting: of November 3, 1986
The following findings of fact are necessary in order to
substantiate the revocation of County Variance No. 215-67:
1. County Variance No. 215-67, a proposal to permit the
establishment of a machine shop and welding shop for
small trailer assembly in the R-4 zoning district, was
tentatively granted on January 7, 1965.
2.
Approval by the County Planning Commission
assembly of small trailers only with
requirements:
was for the
the following
A. All welding operations to be performed under the
roofed areas of the shop and to be properly
screened.
B. All storage of materials and property to be con-
fined inside fenced areas.
C. No additional buildings to be constructed.
3. Approval of Variance No. 215-67 was not effective until
one copy of the Acceptance of Conditions was signed and
returned back to the Planning Commission.
4. Since the approval of the Variance, the applicant and
other future users have not complied with the conditions
of approval. Work has continued to be performed outside
roofed area, welding and fabrication activities have not
been screened, and outdoor storage occurs randomly
without benefit of screens. In addition, additional
structures have been built.
5. The property in question was annexed into the City in
November, 1973, as R-l Single-Family Residential with a
General Plan designation of Low Density Residential
(Annexation No. 295).
6. Following annexation, the City Departments began receiv-
ing complaints concerning non-compliance with the above
conditions and excessive noise created by operation of
the facility.
7.
Since annexation,
prior approval by
confined to the
the business has expanded without
the City. The business is no l,"ger
roofed structure and is no longer
- ()"
o
o
o
Findings of Fact for
Revocation of County Variance No. 215-67
Mayor and Council Meeting of 11/3/86
Page 2
manufacturing small trailers but large storage tanks and
steel fabrication of all types.
8. Testimony was given by surrounding property owners.that
the subject business creates noise which' interferes with
the comfort, repose, health, peace, safety or welfare of
adjacent property owners of normal sensitivity, in
violation of San Bernardino Municipal Code Section
8.33.0l0.J.
9. Testimony was heard from surrounding property owners
that the subject business creates loud and excessive
noise which disturbs the peace, quiet and repose of any
person occupying adjoining or closely situated property
or neighborhood, in violation of San Bernardino Munici-
pal Code Section 8.54.020.8.
10. The decision of the Planning Commission to revoke
Variance No. 215-67 was upheld by the Mayor and Council
on October 20, 1986.
Please take notice that the time which judicial review
of the decision in this matter must be sought is
governed by the provIsIons of Section 1094.6 of the
California Code of Civil Procedure which provides, in
part, as follows:
"(a) Judicial review of any decision of a local
agency, other than school district, as the term local
agency is defined in Section 54951 of the Government
Code, or of any commission, board, officer or agent
thereof, may be had pursuant to Section 1094.5 of this
code only if the petition for writ of mandate pursuant
to such section is filed within the time limits speci-
fied in this section.
(b)
than the
decision
Any such petition
90th day following
becomes final.
shall be filed not later
the date on which the
(d) If the petitioner files a request for the
record as specified in subdivision (c) within 10 days
after the date the decision becomes final as provided in
subdivision (b), the time within which a petition
pursuant to Section 1094.5 may be filed shall be
extended to not later than the 30th day following the
date on which the record is either personally delivered
or mailed to the petitioner or his attorney of record,
if he has one."
~ O'
o
o
o
Findings of Fact for
Revocation of County Variance No. 215-67
Mayor and Council Meeting of 11/3/86
Page 3
Please also take notice that Section 1.26.030 of
the San Bernardino Municipal Code provides as follows:
"1.26.030 Preparation and payment for record and
reporter's transcript.
Upon the filing of a written request for the record
of the proceedings or any portion thereof, an amount
estimated to cover the actual cost of preparing the
record shall be deposited in advance with the City
official preparing the record. The record prepared by
the City official shall include the transcript of the
proceedings, other than a reporter's transcriptl all
pleadings, notices, orders, final decision, exhibits
admitted or rejected, all written evidence, and any
other papers in the case. When a hearing has been
reported by a court reporter and the petitioner desires
a reporter's transcript, the petitioner shall arrange
directly with the court reporter for the transcript, pay
the reporter directly, and lodge the transcript with the
court, serving notice of the lodging to the City
Attorney."
~.
FRANK A. SCHUMA
Planning Director
mkf
.